Considering the divorce process and child support is usually fucked anyways, it's more of a reason to get the government out of it.
Accepting tax dollars as compensation for work she refuses to do isn't the same as someone minding their own business being punished over a few grams of weed. I wish they had just fined her instead of jail, but w/e, as long as she's gone her deputy clerks will do their jobs again.
The anarchist solution. A system has issues so instead of trying to solve the issues destroy the whole system and don't provide a better alternative. Getting the government out of marriage will have great impact on things like hospital visiting rights, medical decisions for a loved one, and government/insurance benefits. How do you propose that insurance companies extend benefits if there isn't proof from the state of marriage? So let's look at the benefits of government getting out of marriage, this woman gets to believe that a ghost in the sky will send her to eternal paradise for not doing her job issuing a marriage license to gay people. On the flip side issues like taxes, government benefits, and health insurance benefits will become vastly more complicated and messy without government licensed marriages, but it seems you just want government to get out of those other areas so it's very unlikely I'll change your mind. At the end of the day if government got out of marriage it may resolve some issue but would create vastly more new issues to deal with. It's a fantasy that the government can effectively get out of marriage at this point.
The point being; If you believe a law to be unjust, no matter your position, you have a right to reject that law. "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson Again, I'm not saying I disagree with gay marriage. I just support anyone willing to give the federal government the finger.
Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. I just wanted to prod you to give some slight passing thought to how those divorce laws might keep people from killing each other over kids, cars, houses, names and money. Cheers, Mate! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm not an anarchist. Don't lump me in with them. Why the hell do people believe we can't do shit without having the government constantly breathing down our necks over literally everything. Oh yeah, that "protecting us from ourselves" bullshit.
She could reject the law by resigning, that way she's not stealing peoples money and she's not acting against her beliefs. I have no sympathy for this woman
The judge didn't want to just fine her because he knew that she would just have ample amounts of money donated to her by those who support her through sites like Gofundme, so she'd still continue to never do her job while paying fines with donated money.
"The government" actually is "the people". We, the people, wanted a legal framework of support for marriage as our basic and fundamental family unit. And if you can convince "we the people" to rescind all marriage law, then it will be done. Good luck with that. You didn't convince me but better luck with everyone else.
She is acting against the First Amendment, as a elected official, by attempting to enforce her religion upon the citizenship.
That's funny you mention that, I literally saw someone trying to make a go fund me page for her over on r/conservative.
Sorry for the unfair characterization I thought you were a self proclaimed minarchist but I think that's another blade I'm confusing you with so my bad for the straw man. I don't think it would be the end of the world to not have government involved in marriage but it would make the situation vastly more complex for many existing governmental and corporate systems and would require a complete overhaul. Say for example I want to provide my wife with healthcare that I get through my workplace. Most workplaces require you to be married to share the benefits. If the government doesn't issue these contracts then businesses will start to need to accept many different types of contracts and the situation becomes much more unnecessarily complicated. On top of that there are over a 100 different federal benefits that married couples receive. If the state doesn't recognize the marriage then the people may not receive these important benefits like deciding medical injuries if your significant other is incapacitated. The point is that it's easy to say in theory lets get government out. It's much harder to come up with an alternative where these benefits are guaranteed for all couples. I can concede that a system would probably develop to accommodate these issues if states stopped issuing marriage licenses, but why create unnecessary hassles just so a woman can discriminate against gay couples. I think there is much more of a debate when it comes to forcing bakers to make a gay wedding cake, but if your job is to license marriage licenses and the state recognIzes gay marriage then you must also recognize gay marriage. Religion is not an excuse to deny people rights guaranteed by the government. You can practice your religion insofar that you don't trample on other people's rights. Getting the gov out of marriage would basically void the fight to get LGBT people equal rights in terms of marriage benefits in uber conservative states. It's very possible a state could choose to only recognize certain types of associative contracts and claim they aren't denying gay marriage. The point is you open up the door to denying people rights they are guaranteed by the constitution.
Having voluntarily agreed to be a representative of the state, she must follow the policies of the state. Just as if she worked for Walmart...she would have voluntarily agreed to be a representative of Walmart, and therefore must follow their policies. If she did not follow Walmart policies, she is breaking the voluntary contract previously made between two said parties....thus she should resign from the job. If she refused to resign, then it is within Walmart's right to fire her. If she does not leave the property after being fired, then she is trespassing. If she trespasses, she should be arrested. Simply replace "state" with "business" and free market/libertarian/anarchist logic dictates she got what she deserved. Note this does not preclude her right to be an anti-homosexual bigot. It simply asserts she violated her voluntary contract. She must face the consequences of doing so. Jail it is, and jail is what she deserves.
Ironically, she is an elected government official. Just one that can't follow the law that effects her governmental position.
Then she should abide by her voluntary contract, which says to follow the policies of her employer i.e. those that issue her pay check. If said employer says to deny gay marriage, then libertarian/free market/anarchist logic dictates that she not allow gay marriage. Based on your previous posts in this thread I would speculate you agree with the fundamental logic...but you have a hard time accepting it because the word "state" is involved instead of "business". It would be hypocritical to agree with one scenario but not the other. A blind hatred for the words "government" or "state" does not offer solutions to real world issues.